By SEAN POULTER
Oscar winning actress, Rachel Weisz, has taken a stand on the theme of natural beauty, even suggesting a ban on the use of Botox by fellow stars. However, questions were asked when she appeared with perfectly smooth skin in a campaign for L’Oreal’s age-defying beauty products.
In fact the image of the 41-year-old, who married Daniel Craig last year, had been digitally enhanced or airbrushed to even out her complexion.
Unrealistic: Hollywood actress Rachel Weisz, 41, looks 20 years younger in this banned L'Oreal campaign
Today, the Advertising Standards Authority(ASA) has announced a ban on the magazine advertisement for L’Oreal’s Revitalift Repair 10.
It ruled the image ‘misleadingly exaggerated’ the performance of the product.
The decision has been welcomed by Lib-Dem MP Jo Swinson, who is campaigning against the use of airbrushing and unrealistic images of beauty in advertising.
The actress stands alongside her James Bond husband, Daniel Craig
The British actress is not the first renowned beauty to have her image digitally enhanced to give a false impression of the benefits of using popular beauty products.
An advertisement for an Olay anti-aging product featuring Twiggy was banned in 2009. Last year L’Oreal advertisements featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington were banned on the grounds they were misleading
‘The banning of this advert, along with the previous ASA rulings banning heavily retouched ads featuring Twiggy, Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, should act as a wake-up call.
‘Thankfully the advertising regulator has again acknowledged the fraudulent nature of excessive retouching.’
She said there was sound medical evidence that faked images cause harm.
Also banned: This Twiggy Olay advert (left) and Julia Roberts L'Oreal advert (right) were both judged to have over-done the airbrushing
‘Rachel Weisz had been professionally styled and made-up and then lit and shot by a professional photographer in a studio setting.
‘The photo was shot using a lot of light in order to make the picture more flattering and to reduce the appearance of imperfections in the ensuing image by giving the image a soft focus and lower resolution.’
The company admitted the image had been subsequently retouched.
The ASA said: ‘We considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even.
‘We therefore concluded that the image in the ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product.’